A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building and D (hereinafter “instant housing”).

E is the Plaintiff's catus and is residing in the instant house.

B. On August 2, 2011, the Defendant filed a suit against E for the claim for the amount borrowed under Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da1879514, and the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the Defendant and E to the effect that “E shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 5,00,000 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from January 1, 201 to August 9, 2011, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

On August 24, 2011, the decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive as is, because E did not raise any objection against the decision on performance recommendation.

C. Based on the executory exemplification of the decision on performance recommendation to E, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Southern District Court for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff, asserting that E has a claim for the refund of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff, Seoul Southern District Court 2018TTTT16284, and was issued by the above court on December 11, 2018.

After that, the Defendant filed a suit against the Plaintiff for the claim for collection of the amount to be collected by Seoul Southern District Court 2019 Ghana5473. On February 11, 2019, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) to the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount equivalent to 12,531,136 won and the rate of 15% per annum from February 15, 2019 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”).

On February 14, 2019, the instant decision on performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff. On March 1, 2019, the instant decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive as is, because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the instant decision on performance recommendation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 8, and Gap evidence 9 respectively.